The cause of religion

[Pisces]

There is alot of discussions here which touch so I thought I'd make a thread asking what you all think is the cause or blame for religion.
Now this is a touchy subject which can end up with flaming so I'd ask people not just to act responciably when you post but when you read, if you don't like people insulting your religion don't read it because I intent this thread to touch on specific examples. This is a disection and generalisation thread, nobody's opinion can be wrong, you may only suggest what you think is a better theory but only that because everyone theories will play a part to an extent. It also means this is an "attack" thread as such, meaning posts will focus on what can be interpretted as negatives about religion and humanity so defending religions has no place here unlike many threads where provoking people is wrong.

Well I'd first and foremost like rate human good will right down the bottum of the causes, I feel while religion may build human goodwill and choice a religion because it represents their views of goodwill when it boils down to it you don't need religion to be good.

I find it easier to use specific examples because I feel religions attract different types of poeple. Christianity attracts people because of its relative ease, you don't need to DO anything, just believe your forgiven and church is optional and just another social event, you meet up with people and listen to stories without needing to do anything. Its also easy to swallow, because it lacks anything objectionable or too far out, it doesn't tell you that you may only piss off a 3 story cliff so you don't get affected by evil spirits; infact it pretty much lets you do whatever you want, it can be used to justify pretty much everything, it even lets you break your own commandments (crusades anyone? And since when was homophobia love thy neighbour?). And Jesus also came with a new addition: The devil to blame all your sins on ;)
Fear of death, you have an eternal soul, and you get to go to heaven just by believing; I feel this is a strong factor because alot of people don't want to just die some day.
Supierioty: "Haha, I'm going to heaven and your not" So many Christians tell me that I need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven and they feel sorry that I'm not; what the hell genuinally pitying somebody else for not believing in your religion. My interpretation of the bible was that Jesus died for EVERYONE's sins, I mean he forgave the people who killed him, they didn't believe in him so when a Christian tells me that I'm not going to heaven my brain screams "Superiority freak". Since you can't prove them wrong then they can always consider themselves right and everyone else wrong so I think that attracts alot of people who want to feel superior. Those who didn't seek it will stick with it because deep down they feel happy feeling sorry for everyone else.
Lack of personal responciablity: I touched on this before but you don't have to take responciablity for your sins or feel bad for not being a Christian before.
Instant gratification: This is a mix of the rest but it just makes you feel good, content and all that. Without seeking any of the other reasons you can feel happy with the life you live.

All these combined play a part but I'd rank them:
Lack of personal responciablity
Fear of death, this is mixed in with the above because once you die you don't have any consequnces.
Instant gratification.
Superiority. Although the Christians who make themselves known don't lack any of this I feel most Christians don't purposily revel in their superiority.
Easiness of belief, I feel Christians would be Christians even if it was slightly more extreme but it is still up there as a cause because believing what you want is a good bonus
Easiness of practice/joining, this comes in with superiority because you get a superiority complex with no joining fee :D

This isn't a religion but a belief. I feel people are draw to the Atheist belief primarily because for superiority: "You foolish people, worshiping your idols like cavemen". You can pick at the flaws and holes in other religions.
Secondly its easy, whats easier than no believing nothing, only 1 thing which I can think of.
Lack of consequences: Be as bad as you like, no gods going to smite you nor tell you wthat to do.
But I will give credit to the fact they acknowledge they will die.

No religion this is both a belief and different to Atheism because it believes in a divine spirit, psyhic universe, godly force or whatever but doesn't believe in any specific religion.
Easy: What is easier than believing what you want?! you can explain anything which science doesn't so I'd rank it easier than Atheism.
Superiority, well you can call the religions wrong for the holes in their religions and you can call the Atheists wrong too. Infact, everyones wrong but you. But I don't feel it attracts those people who want to feel superior as much as religions because other people can say "oh yeah, you believe in nothing. How pathetics that" but a superiority complex is something which you get for having no religion.
Misc. Well you can pick and choose what you want so some people will believe in a soul, others will not. Which means it can steal causes off any other religion.

Sorry to leave a post half done but its 1:46 and by my grammar and spelling you can probably tell I'm tired so I don't have time to do Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and a conclusion linking in my examples to the topic, like I planned but I will post anyway and finish it tomorrow night. So feel free to post what you think is to blame for religion and remember you don't have to associate them with specific religion like I did, I was just doing that to start a list of possible causes, the overall cause of all religion was the point of the subject but doing it for specific religions is interesting also so feel free to post whatever you like.

[Neo]

You seem to have a lot of generalization in there.

And I think the term your looking for for no religon is Agnostic (I believe?).

Not every religon is based around a God either, or at least isn't portrayed in the fore front. For example, Buddhism, etc...

I've always considered religon to be something for weak people. Not don't get me wrong... I don't mean that in a negative sense, I simply mean that if you can't believe in yourself, but can believe in an all-powerful God, then more power to you!

What most people refuse to realize though, is that thier belief in God, or faith, and how he may have helped change thier lives around and such isn't really interference from God, but rather its from you yourself.

I don't know if that makes any sense. If your life is in shambles, and you become a believer and change your life around, its YOU who has done that through your beleif in God. Not God himself.

For myself I am unsure what I believe. I am not athiest, since that holds very little interest to me, for one I don't believe that our entire existence is defined as 1 lifetime here on this planet. But by the same token, I don't believe in eternal damnation, or even heaven for that matter. Reincarnation has always held in interest for me, becuase there is something just really interesting about it.

At any rate. I think religon is nothing more then:

To control people
To give people hope

I think that strips away everything but the most basic things.

You might add in "to make people moral" or some such, but you don't need religon to be a good person. How many christians have been killers, rapers, etc...? Obviously it didn't work out to well for them. And the KKK, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't they big on church and stuff? Even extremist muslim groups. Any religon can spawn "evil" acts.

-Neo

[SHISHKABOB]

Arthur C Clarke I think that is his name but in his book, Space Odessey 3001. The whole world has gone "perfect". There is no religion, there are no fights most of the time, everyone is nice, and there is like less than 1,000,000,000 ppl on the Earth. I am quite sorry to know that this future will never occur for many reasons which I would delve into another time. In this future AC gives a nice explanation for why religion was removed and why it was formed. It was really formed for a way to give civilization basic rules. It is much easier to make someone do something if you tell them they will burn in eternal torment forever if they don't. It also helped to give stability and hope. Nowadays religion has gove kapooie. There have been too many religious leaders (mostly medieval catholics) that wanted power from religion. AC's future will never happen because people are too stubborn. As I call it, The Infamous Cahtolicism Gland. Also people are too afraid.

[Neo]

Arthur C Clarke I think that is his name but in his book, Space Odessey 3001. The whole world has gone "perfect". There is no religion, there are no fights most of the time, everyone is nice, and there is like less than 1,000,000,000 ppl on the Earth. I am quite sorry to know that this future will never occur for many reasons which I would delve into another time. In this future AC gives a nice explanation for why religion was removed and why it was formed. It was really formed for a way to give civilization basic rules. It is much easier to make someone do something if you tell them they will burn in eternal torment forever if they don't. It also helped to give stability and hope. Nowadays religion has gove kapooie. There have been too many religious leaders (mostly medieval catholics) that wanted power from religion. AC's future will never happen because people are too stubborn. As I call it, The Infamous Cahtolicism Gland. Also people are too afraid.
So basically, like I mentioned, religon can be used to control people? It all comes down to control for the peopl eleading, and hope for the people following.

-Neo

[SHISHKABOB]

Yes at first and at the "end" or present. Religion is also there to explain things. I guess at first it wasnt used so much for control but it is more now adays and in the medieval ages. This I suppose is a big genereralization.

[JimRaynor117]

Is giving people something to believe in necessarily a bad thing? I mean, if a religion gives someone a sense of hope, as being part of a bigger picture, then is it wrong when there’s no proof?

I am a catholic. I’m not letting that fact affect my answer to this, rather I have a following to relate to. You rate religions on how “easy” they are rather than their effects on people’ lives. Not to say it’s a wrong way to look at religions, just that you seem to imply that people should believe in the culture that gives them the most leniency on what they can and cannot do. Such as “God forgives all” in Catholic faith. Some would see that as an invitation to do whatever they want, without repercussions, seeing as everyone in Catholic Faith will go to Heaven unless they do some serious harm while living on earth.

I say that stance on Catholicism is self-invented. If you had no desire to break the teachings of a religion, you wouldn’t think of it as being “easy” or “hard”, but fair. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps humans must be punished for their offenses, rather than forgiveness. Either way, I’m not the one to judge that, and maybe the leaders and founders of the Catholic Church aren’t the ones as well.

I have attended years of Catholic school, and I go to Church every Sunday, giving my own money in donation of the services. I do this, and I read from a Bible that contains the scriptures, teachings, and very foundations of my faith. In reading from it, I acknowledge the fact that there is no definitive proof of the existence of my religion. Only faith, and the passing of beliefs.

What if I’m wrong? What if the entire Catholic faith is based upon a God that has never existed; the product of some writers back in the day. Does that mean that all the hours I spent attending church were wasted? That all the scripture I read, all the service I did, the psalms and the ballads, were for naught?

I don’t believe so. In believing in God, it is not so important as to the form of religion, and the basing of beliefs. It is that I believe at all. And in believing in my God, I live a lifestyle influenced by Catholicism. Whether my lifestyle is right or wrong, I take comfort in knowing that it has at least shaped me in how I think, act, and feel. And whether Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha is the right one, or no religion at all, I know that unless my faith leads me to doing the wrong thing, by being destructive, or infringing on others’ religion, then I am not wasting my life in following it.

I am not a devout Christian. I am not the person who reads the Bible on his/her own time, nor do I teach its teachings to others. I simply go to Church, and try to live by its morals. I do not even pray outside of Church. Does that make me wrong or right? According to my exact teachings, I should be proclaiming the Lord’s good name, and reading my Bible, and praying every day. I do not. But I abide by my faith, though I have no concrete explanations for its founding or future.

In simply believing in something, I lead a better life.

[Neo]

I would like to note that I don't consider religon a bad thing at all, just that it can be twisted. Its one thing to follow your religon, its another thing to let a leader in that religon twist it to thier own purposes.

-Neo

[Prozerran]

I disagree with Neo. I think you hit the nail on the head so to speak that organized religion serves a fundamental purpose. Organized religion is a form of control. The End.

Whether it offers hope or not is only a mechanism of appeal. In general, religion is a conveyance of morality upon someone. So that it's easier for society to accept morality universally, we're provided with a figurehead of sorts, a God, that looks down on us with contempt when we sin, and looks down on us with praise when we do morally acceptable deeds.

We can break religion down, critique it, generalize it, whatever, but it cannot be denied categorically or otherwise that religion serves to influence society en masse. The act of influence upon us is an attempt of control.

Christianity, for example, attracts us in many ways, through guilt for the loss of a good man, through fear of a vengeful God, or through hope for an eternal life. It's nothing more than common marketing that we can observe even today - Christian Children's Fund, ADT Home Security, and Prescription Medication Advertising respectively.

I think this gets out of hand though. For instance, you would never expect a bottle of water to bring you out of financial distress, but add a preacher, a religion, and an infomercial and now you've got people blindly sending in money for "miracle water" that supposedly cures cancer. And the sad thing is, PEOPLE BUY IT!

The 700 Club is infamous for backing right-wing politics, but the message they send out regarding other religions is a frightning one. It's scary to think the Crusades could happen all over again, but groups like the 700 Club lobby congress, influence government, and their message? Raise a holy army to fight and kill the behemoths, blasphemers, and the non-believers, for they are sinners in the eyes of a vengeful God.

Religion is borderline out of control. There's a reason humanity has turned to government for leadership, and not the church. The church offers the doctrine and a twist. I say if you are a believer of any religion, the danger lies in organized religion. If you are a believer of God, believe, worship every Sunday, pray for yourself and others, but be honest to yourself by remaining critical of things that are without rationality. Be open to interpretation of your religion and don't turn others away simply because you cannot agree to disagree on the interpretation of your doctrine.

Yeah, I was a Presbyterian. The church was shut down by greedy, money hungry leaders with an agenda, and we were left to fend for ourselves. Organized religion is the bane of society.

[Schwitzer]

If I were to hazard a guess, I would wager that religion was (originally) created by man to help us cope with the idea of death. As humans we regard ourselves as pretty important, and the thought that we are completely extinguished when we die isn't a particularly pleasant one. Hence, insert an idea about life after death and suddenly it's not so bad.

Through time religion has been expanded upon, but I still view it as a creation of man. In fact, it seems to me that some greedy buggers picked up on the idea and perverted it to their own purposes. Don't believe me? Look at how magnificent the Vatican is. Where did all that money come from? Loyal believers, no doubt.

I cannot help but notice some of the horrible things religion has given us in the past. The Crusades has already been mentioned, but it goes much further than that. Certain religions have carried messages of discrimination and hatred through the ages, and loyal believers blindly lap it all up because they're too devoted to stop and think, "Hang on... this doesn't sound right."

I have spoken to members belonging to all sorts of religious denominations, and a frightening amount of them have views that are text-book answers taught by their religion. Others try to use their religion to cover up their own prejudices, claiming that they are in fact justified for having such views because "God said so".

However, I am not opposed to religion itself. Some people find solace in their beliefs. Others receive motivation to acheive things that they otherwise would not. In these examples I believe religion is in fact harmless and somewhat beneficial.

With each passing generation I believe that society is becoming increasingly open-minded. For example, homosexuality used to be an automatic ticket to eternal damnation. Nowadays most people barely bat an eyelid - a level of acceptance that I believe can only be mutually beneficial.

However, some of the larger religions still preach very closed-minded views, and my concern is that while religions hold on to their out-dated views there will always be those thoughtless lemmings who choose to base their entire belief system around them.

[Yoda]

There is alot of discussions here which touch so I thought I'd make a thread asking what you all think is the cause or blame for religion.
Now this is a touchy subject which can end up with flaming so I'd ask people not just to act responciably when you post but when you read, if you don't like people insulting your religion don't read it because I intent this thread to touch on specific examples. This is a disection and generalisation thread, nobody's opinion can be wrong, you may only suggest what you think is a better theory but only that because everyone theories will play a part to an extent. It also means this is an "attack" thread as such, meaning posts will focus on what can be interpretted as negatives about religion and humanity so defending religions has no place here unlike many threads where provoking people is wrong.

Right.


Well I'd first and foremost like rate human good will right down the bottum of the causes, I feel while religion may build human goodwill and choice a religion because it represents their views of goodwill when it boils down to it you don't need religion to be good.

Whats the incentive to be good then? Surely its better to pursue personal short term happiness over happiness of others if there is no value in human life?


I find it easier to use specific examples because I feel religions attract different types of poeple. Christianity attracts people because of its relative ease, you don't need to DO anything, just believe your forgiven


No.


and church is optional and just another social event, you meet up with people and listen to stories without needing to do anything.

No. You do have to obey Gods commands. You will not enter heaven if you believe in God but are a mass murderer with no respect for human life.


infact it pretty much lets you do whatever you want,



No....


it can be used to justify pretty much everything, it even lets you break your own commandments


Ok, I've decided not to say it, but I think I'm safe in saying so now. You have no idea what you're talking about....


(crusades anyone?

They were manipulating religion there, and not following Christianity. They were more interested in taking over land and gaining riches. There is no chance that God would have approved of the crusades, and they are condemned by the Church now.


And Jesus also came with a new addition: The devil to blame all your sins on ;)

You must be joking...:rolleyes: . And if you are, well its not very funny.


Fear of death, you have an eternal soul, and you get to go to heaven just by believing;

See above.


Supierioty: "Haha, I'm going to heaven and your not"

"Blessed are the weak for they shall inherit the earth." Christians should not think of themselves as superior.


So many Christians tell me that I need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven and they feel sorry that I'm not; what the hell genuinally pitying somebody else for not believing in your religion.

Well... who would allow someone to spend an enternity in hell if they could save someone from it?


My interpretation of the bible was that Jesus died for EVERYONE's sins, I mean he forgave the people who killed him, they didn't believe in him so when a Christian tells me that I'm not going to heaven my brain screams "Superiority freak".

You have no idea was you're talking about... this warrants a second saying of that.


Since you can't prove them wrong then they can always consider themselves right and everyone else wrong so I think that attracts alot of people who want to feel superior.

:rolleyes:


Those who didn't seek it will stick with it because deep down they feel happy feeling sorry for everyone else.
Lack of personal responciablity: I touched on this before but you don't have to take responciablity for your sins or feel bad for not being a Christian before.

Yes you do. God will always forgive you of your sins when you seek His mercy. But if you sin with indifference, well thats another matter.


Lack of personal responciablity

You do have to obey Gods commandments if you consider yourself a Christian, that can be a responsibility. Like you shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, for one.


Fear of death, this is mixed in with the above because once you die you don't have any consequnces.

I thought that that was atheism? "Enter through the narrow gate" says the Lord. "Very few find it..."


Instant gratification.
Superiority. Although the Christians who make themselves known don't lack any of this I feel most Christians don't purposily revel in their superiority.

Um... saying that "I'm a Christian hahahahhaha" is not the right thing to do...


Easiness of belief, I feel Christians would be Christians even if it was slightly more extreme but it is still up there as a cause because believing what you want is a good bonus

This is a paradox with evolution.


Easiness of practice/joining, this comes in with superiority because you get a superiority complex with no joining fee :D

I'll say yet again, there is no "superiority complex."


This isn't a religion but a belief. I feel people are draw to the Atheist belief primarily because for superiority: "You foolish people, worshiping your idols like cavemen". You can pick at the flaws and holes in other religions.

Actually the superiority factor is probably more true for Atheism for the same reasons you say. I'm not being biased. I have never seen a Christian with a superiority factor (which is based soley on their Christianity). But have seen a lot of people who are atheists with one. I am being serious here.


Secondly its easy, whats easier than no believing nothing, only 1 thing which I can think of.
Lack of consequences: Be as bad as you like, no gods going to smite you nor tell you wthat to do.
But I will give credit to the fact they acknowledge they will die.

Yeah... be promiscious and kill your children before their born because their is no consequence or loss.


No religion this is both a belief and different to Atheism because it believes in a divine spirit, psyhic universe, godly force or whatever but doesn't believe in any specific religion.
Easy: What is easier than believing what you want?! you can explain anything which science doesn't so I'd rank it easier than Atheism.
Superiority, well you can call the religions wrong for the holes in their religions and you can call the Atheists wrong too. Infact, everyones wrong but you. But I don't feel it attracts those people who want to feel superior as much as religions because other people can say "oh yeah, you believe in nothing. How pathetics that" but a superiority complex is something which you get for having no religion.
Misc. Well you can pick and choose what you want so some people will believe in a soul, others will not. Which means it can steal causes off any other religion.

Sorry to leave a post half done but its 1:46 and by my grammar and spelling you can probably tell I'm tired so I don't have time to do Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and a conclusion linking in my examples to the topic, like I planned but I will post anyway and finish it tomorrow night. So feel free to post what you think is to blame for religion and remember you don't have to associate them with specific religion like I did, I was just doing that to start a list of possible causes, the overall cause of all religion was the point of the subject but doing it for specific religions is interesting also so feel free to post whatever you like.

I think Athiesm/evolution came into popularity because it comes with no responsibility or morals with it. You can do whatever you want.... and its what a lot of people want to believe even though 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.

[Schwitzer]

Whats the incentive to be good then? Surely its better to pursue personal short term happiness over happiness of others if there is no value in human life?
Well, for a start if you're "too bad" you're breaking the law and will be punished, which kinda puts a dent in the whole happiness thing.

Ok, I've decided not to say it, but I think I'm safe in saying so now. You have no idea what you're talking about....
Excuse me, this is the Intellectual Roundtable, not the "I don't believe what you say so therefore you know nothing" crap-hole. Keep that sort of bullshit out of here.

They were manipulating religion there, and not following Christianity. They were more interested in taking over land and gaining riches. There is no chance that God would have approved of the crusades, and they are condemned by the Church now.
So what's to prevent other people manipulating religion nowadays in more subtle ways?

(whole heap of Christian stuff
Okey, that's your spin on it; fine. I know other "Christians" that have differing views, and you all call each other "not true Christians". This isn't a thread for stating your particular beliefs. If you want to argue which is the true set of Christian beliefs go do it elsewhere, please.

Well... who would allow someone to spend an enternity in hell if they could save someone from it?
Your God, apparently.

You have no idea was you're talking about...
Not here.

Actually the superiority factor is probably more true for Atheism for the same reasons you say. I'm not being biased. I have never seen a Christian with a superiority factor (which is based soley on their Christianity). But have seen a lot of people who are atheists with one. I am being serious here.
I remember a certain individual telling someone else that they "know nothing" simply 'cause what he posted didn't conform to that person's particular religious beliefs. Hint: I'm talking about you.

I think Athiesm/evolution came into popularity because it comes with no responsibility or morals with it. You can do whatever you want.... and its what a lot of people want to believe even though 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.
I tend to find that when I argue with athiests they take personal responsibility for their beliefs, as opposed to shifting the blame onto their religion.

At any rate, please cite your "99.9%" research statistic that clearly indicates they "have no idea what they're talking about".

See, that's just not nice. How can you argue that you're opinions are educated when you refuse to even listen to the other side? From what I've seen, you would much rather prefer to squeal, "you know nothing!" whenever someone utters something that goes against your set of beliefs.

But I guess I know nothing, eh?

[Nuts]

Yoda, stereotype much?

Please look upon the Catholic church and ask yourself, is this a beacon of morality? Pope John Paul II actively worked to hide paedophilic priests by having them shuttled back to Rome. Religion has no inherent goodness, in fact, there is much in the Bible that would be considered evil by my standards...my lowly heathenistic standards. Religion is used as the basis of most every war in some fashion. Religion breeds hatred of non-believers all over the world, yet you claim that Christianity itself is good and wholesome. I ask, what good is a good and wholesome doctrine if nobody follows it? Oh yes, forgiveness, I forgot. Lest we forget that all sins can be cleansed if we only hand our souls to Gawd. Of course, if you're Catholic, it's rather like a drive-through cleansing, via a paedophile priest. Next please!

Whats the incentive to be good then? Surely its better to pursue personal short term happiness over happiness of others if there is no value in human life?
Please allow me to convey my utter disgust if you require an incentive to be good. Are you 5 years old? Do you need a cookie to shut up? This isn't preschool where good behavior is rewarded. Real life has consequences, the most severe consequence is death, followed by many other community based punishments. If you're looking to God for a reward every time you're good, then you are a much lesser person that any heathen.

I have never seen a Christian with a superiority factor (which is based soley on their Christianity).
You don't see it because you're a fellow Christian. You're not a heathen like us. Snooty religious types tend to ignore the misgivings of the rest of their flock.

Well... who would allow someone to spend an enternity in hell if they could save someone from it?
I thought you didn't find yourself superior? Believing that a heathen is wrong, while you are right is the very definition of superiority. You're confused, aren't you?

[hammocksleeper]

Please look upon the Catholic church and ask yourself, is this a beacon of morality? Pope John Paul II actively worked to hide paedophilic priests by having them shuttled back to Rome.
A good code of ethics will tell you that you preserve the chain of command and you deal with problems in-house. Just because the Pope hid them from the public does not mean that they were not dealt with in another way.


Religion has no inherent goodness, in fact, there is much in the Bible that would be considered evil by my standards...my lowly heathenistic standards. Religion is used as the basis of most every war in some fashion. Religion breeds hatred of non-believers all over the world, yet you claim that Christianity itself is good and wholesome.
Religion is easily abused, however it's purpose is not to justify war and other evil doings. My own religion is self-aware of the evil that can come under the guise of a religion. Remember all the pharisees and that other shit going on? Jesus came to correct some of that. If you follow the straight and narrow you're in the clear. But don't be fooled into thinking that someone who is doing evil under the purported justifications of a religion is truthfully representing that religion. You wouldn't go before a congregation of Muslims and tell them that their religion clearly supports the suicide bombing of Americans and Israelis, would you?

Don't criticize someone else's stereotyping if you are going to talk about pedophilia in the Church like that.

You don't see it because you're a fellow Christian. You're not a heathen like us. Snooty religious types tend to ignore the misgivings of the rest of their flock. I thought you didn't find yourself superior? Believing that a heathen is wrong, while you are right is the very definition of superiority. You're confused, aren't you?

Who are you trying to convince here, Christians, or yourself? Because there's no issue there for me. I don't know about Yoda's beliefs, but my religion teaches that we are all stained by sin, and only by the grace of God are we welcomed into his Kingdom. There is a truly right path, outlined by the doctrine, but it is a sin to judge others, one should rather turn to himself when looking for things to improve. As I said above, it is sometimes easily to fall into the trappings of sin, for example judging others or feeling superior, but these sins should not be viewed as a part of the religion itself, but rather as the shortcomings of its followers.

[Nuts]

A good code of ethics will tell you that you preserve the chain of command and you deal with problems in-house. Just because the Pope hid them from the public does not mean that they were not dealt with in another way.
Would this not indicate a promotion of superiority within the church? This isn't a matter of ill will or a PR problem, these are very serious criminal charges in which the church is trying to evade.

But don't be fooled into thinking that someone who is doing evil under the purported justifications of a religion is truthfully representing that religion. You wouldn't go before a congregation of Muslims and tell them that their religion clearly supports the suicide bombing of Americans and Israelis, would you?
If the majority of a particular religion is misrepresenting of its true nature, should we ignore it? How many Middle-East people would condemn Israel if asked the question? I dare say a large majority are disgusted with Israel, even though the only basis for this hate revolves around a simple difference of religion. When does a bastardized religion lose its original meaning and take on the form of its followers? Islam can be peaceful, of course, but in that region of the world, there are few that don't hold hate in their heart form some region of the world, be it America, Israel or elsewhere.

Don't criticize someone else's stereotyping if you are going to talk about pedophilia in the Church like that.
I dare say a church that mandates abstinence in its clergy is a recipe for disaster. I don't see where I stereotyped, I said it existed, and I cracked a joke. Do I think that every priest is a pervert? No. But I do believe that such behavior is rampant in the church.

Who are you trying to convince here, Christians, or yourself? Because there's no issue there for me.
You are very rare, what can I say?

As I said above, it is sometimes easily to fall into the trappings of sin, for example judging others or feeling superior, but these sins should not be viewed as a part of the religion itself, but rather as the shortcomings of its followers.
But the followers do represent the religion. Great ideals are worthless without the people that are intended to support them. It is difficult to gauge such behavior since it is absolutely opinion based. In my experience, I have met only two people that I could say followed their religion with their hearts. I dare say that's a very sad picture, even in my small frame of reference.

[Schwitzer]

A good code of ethics will tell you that you preserve the chain of command and you deal with problems in-house. Just because the Pope hid them from the public does not mean that they were not dealt with in another way.
So religion is above the law, is it? How do you think the world would operate if all organisations were allowed to turn police away by saying, "We're dealing with it in 'another way' "?

Paedophilia is an extremely illegal act, and I don't see any justification for allowing the Church to harbour criminals from the proper law-enforcement agencies.

Looks like we can chalk a definate example up for superiority in religion.

[GenocideAlive]

I think Athiesm/evolution came into popularity because it comes with no responsibility or morals with it. You can do whatever you want.... and its what a lot of people want to believe even though 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.
AAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.

OK, I'm over it now...no wait. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

Seeing as how I'm 26 and a professional scientist, I find it unbearably hilarious that some know-nothing bible thumping kid is making comments like "99.9% of [aetheists/evolution advocates] have no idea what they're talking about". Here's a fucking clue: BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, YOU SHOULD SHUT THE HELL UP.

I don't know when amateur propaganda became evidence or even remotely convincing, but you guys are like cockroaches crawling all over the Internet. You and FallenLord should swap website sources; for giggles you can read Morkeliph's very humorous depiction of the basis for your debate.
A good code of ethics will tell you that you preserve the chain of command and you deal with problems in-house. Just because the Pope hid them from the public does not mean that they were not dealt with in another way.
A good code of ethics will fucking tell you that if someone is raping children then they need to publicly face the consequences. If priests start shooting people, they need to go to a court and be tried. They don't need to be sent back to Rome and be involved in a giant PR scheme for damage control. I'll tell you one thing, if a priest ever rapes my kid (statutory or otherwise), I hope he doesn't count on Rome hiding him. I will burn that fucking high-and-mighty bullshit to the ground.
Religion is easily abused, however it's purpose is not to justify war and other evil doings.
How about using the local church's highest position as a front for raping children?
But don't be fooled into thinking that someone who is doing evil under the purported justifications of a religion is truthfully representing that religion.
We have gaping hole in your logic. You've got priests using their position in clergy as a method for fishing for child rape victims. Instead of denouncing their behavior as sinful, against the doctrine of your god, and allowing them to face punishment, what happens? They're shuttled back to "base". Why, oh why, would they try to bring these sick fucks whom were abusing their positions in the church to MAINTAIN their positions, AVOID the laws of the land, and CIRCUMVENT the consequences of their actions rather than declaring them as NOT representing Christianity? Because even the Pope isn't blind enough to try to feign any lack of responsibility on the part of the church's members.

Every single Christian represents Christianity. Every single Muslim represents Islam. Many, many Muslims are attempting to work and pray towards stopping the violence and avoiding the stigma associated with their group's religious actions. Most will tell you that those people's actions aren't associated with Allah but rather their political beliefs, it's just that their religion is very ingrained into their everyday life. But I've never heard of Muslim priests using mosques to rape kids and having their head ship them back to Mecca when they find out.

If I ever taught my kid a religion, Islam >>>>> Christianity, for that reason among others.

[Neo]

I disagree with Neo. I think you hit the nail on the head so to speak that organized religion serves a fundamental purpose. Organized religion is a form of control. The End.
Did you mean to say you disagree with me? O_o

Oh at any rate.

GA your focusing on only one aspect of Christianity. Yes there is a problem with Preists abusing thier power and molesting children... But so do relatives, parents, and other adults in a child's life. It happens often, I agree that the way these preists were handled was appaling, but when it comes down to it, Christianity isn't an evil religon -- niether is Islam or Judiasm.

Meh, I don't really have a point. Power corrupts, and what greater power is there then the church? (consider that as a tongue-in-cheek attitude).

-Neo

[Prozerran]

Did you mean to say you disagree with me? O_o

Yes, I disagree with you that religion offers hope. You're right, religion's function in society is control. You're wrong that it's function is to offer hope. Rather, hope is an evangelistic tool if you break it all down. Here, allow me:

Christianity promises these things:

Eternal damnation if you do not believe in or obey God (Fear)
Forgiveness, if you obey God or repent your sins (Hope)
Heaven (Love)

All leading to.... let's everyone say it together.... CONTROL.

Really, it's very simple. Religion 101.

[Weltall]

The cause is because it makes the person feel good, for obvious reasons.

Don't believe anything with heaven and hell, for more reasons than that. But a big cause in the major religions is heaven and hell. Everyone who you think is "less" than you, gets the pits. You have to join because if you don't you'll go to hell. "I can't do that or the devil will get me." "I need to go to heaven." Heaven and hell in a religion make it much more enjoyable to believe.

Many times people with a religion live happier lives. But stats somewhat show it differently in suicide and such.

The problem is that religion makes stupid beliefs flurish. If we did away with those beliefs, I think the world would be a happier place for every animal.

[Pisces]

I enjoyed reading the posts here; this is a sensitive subject so I am glad everyone treated it with maturity, a few posts were straying off, I of course don’t agree with what Yoda said but some of the responses were too personal. But everyone stayed very mature for the circumstances (no name calling and pulling hair ;) ) so big ups to everyone :)
To clarify what I said about me thinking that you don’t need religion to have good will; I feel the religious rules of tolerance and helping each other reflects our inner most feeling of wanting to help each other and not wanting to be hurt, most people realize that karma doesn’t need to be spiritual to affect us so will help each other. Also I feel good off helping other people, religion didn’t teach me this, and religion named many of society’s rules not made them.
So where was I...

Judaism this is an old religion and it is hard to generalize because it is not just a religion, it’s a culture for which it has no full set of agreed upon scriptures. Its teachings contain a set of laws as well as helpful advice which use god as an enforcer of types.
Unlike Christianity, being a Jew is not easy, there is no devil to blame and sins must be atoned for before they are forgiven and its not that easy to join. The cause, well originally it was control as reflected by the set of laws but people won't go to a religion because they want to be controlled but I feel people will go to Judaism/stay with it because it is more than a religion, it is a culture; and the feeling of being part of a community and something ancient is much stronger than in other religions, sure there is a lot of effort in being a Jew but I think it would just reinforce the feeling of being part of something.
Superiority, can't comment because I don't know many Jews but because they are a tight bunched community and it is quite a strong/real religion I'm sure its there.
Fear of death, you get heaven/hell again you have to work to get into heaven but if you work for it then you should get in.

How do you describe Hinduism? You do not need to believe in anything divine to be Hindu because it’s a set of complex philosophies and traditions bunched together and called a religion. But I will generalize them as the ones who believe in one of the 3 most common main gods or a mixture of the 3.
My main cause would be the contempt in believing your part of something greater, again being an ancient religion it is more than just a religion but a culture and a law; Hindu was not a religion until India become more integrated with the west. The culture isn’t as human based as Judaism but if you’ve been to India you see how they respect animals (a bit too much sometimes) and this harmony with all things makes you feel part of something greater.
Instant gratification: Meditation makes you happy and so does living what you believe to be a pure life. Not to mention Yoga.
Superiority: I don’t think I need to repeat an explanation. Feeling part of something greater can make you feel superior.
Justification of greed: Hinduism made the karma philosophy so how on earth can it be used to justify greed and such, well although it promotes giving you can give a little and then believe that everything good which happens to you is deserved. You don’t need masters of economics to know that giving 10% (I used this figure from Christianity, Hinduism doesn’t have a set amount) is more to somebody who can barely afford food than to somebody with a great deal of savings. Although not set amount somebody who gives a great amount can justify equal greed.
I’d also like to note that they have an eternal soul but they believe eternal life is a bad thing (a cycle of pain and death) which I find extremely interesting and is the reason I didn’t include it.

I’ll need someone else to say the really negative things about Buddhism because it is the closest religion to me. Buddhism is very similar to Hinduism in that it is a set of teachings rather than a belief, the Hindu gods are used but like Hinduism acknowledges that it may not be right and Buddhism specifically says not to worry about such things because you’ll never get an answer.
Instant gratification: Mediation is an important part of Buddhism and Buddhist mediations is adopted all around the world because it makes your happy and contempt, its teachings likewise indulge greatly on ways of making yourself happy.
Superiority: If you believe you are going to the right way to Nirvana, happiness and helping others then superiority isn’t far.
Part of something greater: Although Buddhism is based around humanity rather than anything greater, their community is strong and Buddhist monks live entirely off the good will of their community and in turn they act as a therapist/guidance councilor to the community.
You don’t have to work. :D This is just a joke but it’s true that Buddhist monks don’t have to work and get everything for free ;) But they are limited to how much they can receive.

Ok now all that’s said and done: The conclusion. Religion (I am including all beliefs in this) is a reflection of the human conditions, I always felt that fear of death was the biggest factor and even though some religions acknowledge that you will die or make the concept even more frightening, I still think it is. Buddhism advises you to understand and come to terms with death, and Atheism and Hinduism as well as a few others relieves this fear of the big unknown by knowing what will happen even if it is a hard belief, Buddhism as this as well btw. Secondly superiority, it is in human nature to have a superiority complex and you’d have to have a pretty huge one to think that you don’t, so religion being a reflection of human nature you’d need a huge superiority complex to think your religion isn’t affected by it. Shamans who knew of seasons were greatly worshipped for this knowledge likewise religious leaders get the same and who can say they don’t enjoy being right. But I would rank superiority over others third to superiority over yourself or your own humanity, we are fragile ignorant beings who even if we knew the true nature of the universe we could not understand it; religion puts a human face on the universe and so we can finally conquer it.
Then there is control, Egyptians pharaohs would change which is the biggest best god and which are the evil ones so they can force others to their will and they killed the last pharaoh because he was evil. The Hebrew bible is a book of law with God as the enforcer. But this was the creation or manipulation of religion not the continuation of it.

[Neo]

Yes, I disagree with you that religion offers hope. You're right, religion's function in society is control. You're wrong that it's function is to offer hope. Rather, hope is an evangelistic tool if you break it all down. Here, allow me:

Christianity promises these things:

Eternal damnation if you do not believe in or obey God (Fear)
Forgiveness, if you obey God or repent your sins (Hope)
Heaven (Love)

All leading to.... let's everyone say it together.... CONTROL.

Really, it's very simple. Religion 101.
You seem rather cynical.

I would say religon gives a lot of people Hope. I would imagine a great many Christians would disagree with those points you made. And what about other religons? I would say any religon can give someone hope -- regardless of any "control factor" going on.

-Neo

[DragonPaladin]

GA your focusing on only one aspect of Christianity. Yes there is a problem with Preists abusing thier power and molesting children... But so do relatives, parents, and other adults in a child's life. It happens often, I agree that the way these preists were handled was appaling, but when it comes down to it, Christianity isn't an evil religon -- niether is Islam or Judiasm.

When you accuse priests of molesting children, religion has very little to do with it. Christianity does not teach their priests to molest children. The priests *choose* to do it themselves. I use the word choose lightly because it is, after all, a picky subject. But other people molest children too. By circumventing Islam over Christanity simply because, as you say, their priests don't molest children is simply attacking the wrong thing. It is the people who made the decision for themselves, not the religion.

[Prozerran]

You seem rather cynical.

I would say religon gives a lot of people Hope. I would imagine a great many Christians would disagree with those points you made. And what about other religons? I would say any religon can give someone hope -- regardless of any "control factor" going on.

-Neo

I can't really say that I care what a great many Christians would have to say about my points. Being that their position is compromised, I'm not really sure they can approach the discussion objectively.

Ok, back on topic, shall we? We're talking about fundamental function(s) of religion. I was originally replying to this:

At any rate. I think religon is nothing more then:

To control people
To give people hope

I think that strips away everything but the most basic things.


The most basic "thing" or as it's implied here, function, of religion is not to give people hope... you're looking at hope in the wrong way as it applies to religion.

With a doctrine of moral principles and values in front of you, all it can do is control you, determine your values for you, or encourage you to accept values which otherwise you reasonably would not. The incentive is Hope, but the purpose is control. The function, the basic thing, is control. Sorry, but I disagree with you, Neo.

And no, I'm not cynical. I'm rational.

[Neo]

I can't really say that I care what a great many Christians would have to say about my points. Being that their position is compromised, I'm not really sure they can approach the discussion objectively.

Ok, back on topic, shall we? We're talking about fundamental function(s) of religion. I was originally replying to this:



The most basic "thing" or as it's implied here, function, of religion is not to give people hope... you're looking at hope in the wrong way as it applies to religion.

With a doctrine of moral principles and values in front of you, all it can do is control you, determine your values for you, or encourage you to accept values which otherwise you reasonably would not. The incentive is Hope, but the purpose is control. The function, the basic thing, is control. Sorry, but I disagree with you, Neo.

And no, I'm not cynical. I'm rational.

Your either completely missing my point, or just arguing over semantics.

I am trying to say that religon gives people something to believe in -- something bigger then themselves, something to believe in for the afterlife, and something to believe in for thier own current life. I term this as "hope". Whether thats how you describe it or not doesn't really matter to me.

The point I was trying to get across is that, while religon, a majority of it/people behind can/do use it to control the masses, religon also gives people something important to believe in.

You make it sound like its ALL control. The ENTIRE thing. I don't think thats true. You've turned religon into some negative thing, as if no good can come of it, or people are only being controlled through/by it.

I may not be religous, but I don't condemn it or make it out to be evil, or bad... Its only the people behind it who have become twisted.

At most religon's core, they teach you to be a good person. Thats all I really meant. Morality or not, Hope or not, I will not argue semantics. But if a religon can give someone hope, or make them a good person at heart, then does it matter how its taught? Forcing someone to believe in something or goto Hell... Do I agree with that? No. But can I understand it? Yes. It may not be exactly the same, but Law was first enforced at the point of a spear... eventually it just became part of life. Be a good person, or goto hell. Gets the point across rather well, don't you think?

Some people need something to believe in, religon offers them that something.

-Neo

[Leosam096]

The most basic "thing" or as it's implied here, function, of religion is not to give people hope... you're looking at hope in the wrong way as it applies to religion.

With a doctrine of moral principles and values in front of you, all it can do is control you, determine your values for you, or encourage you to accept values which otherwise you reasonably would not. The incentive is Hope, but the purpose is control. The function, the basic thing, is control. Sorry, but I disagree with you, Neo.

And no, I'm not cynical. I'm rational.
There are two types of religion:
1.Worldly Religion = This is mainly about Man reaching out to God or their god...man is waiting for his god to rescue him and take him with open arms.
2.Spiritual Religion = Or Christianity...this is about God reaching out to man.God is waiting for us to go to him not like Man is waiting for God to rescue him and take him away.God is waiting for you to have a relationship with Him and wants you to know that He loves you.This is explaining that Christianity is like a relationship between a bride and groom...God is the groom and you are the bride...at the moment you come through those doors,the groom is overjoyed that the bride has come!

The purpose is Hope,Love,Joy,Peace,Control,Encourage,Unity,harmon y,etc. but it all Sums to one important thing,God.Your point of view is so small you do not know how to widen it that it pictures to only one thing...to bring you to the one who made you...God.You cannot know these things until you've found out what your point of view is or WHAT Are You Looking At?Is it Whole?or is it only one piece of the puzzle?This whole time this is why we cannot see...because we never widened anything...all these years of trying to find out,science has failed to see but once we see it clearly religion points/sums up to one colossus figure of what we've been trying to reach.Indeed its common sense.

[Prozerran]

The only thing religion comes down to is control. It has nothing to do with semantics. It has nothing to do with hope. You can cry all day that religion offers hope, but historically, religion functions differently. In Rome, religion was government, or at the very least, government was not above religion the way government is separated from religion today. Yet, we still have the Jerry Falwell's and the Pat Robertson's of today circumventing government in order to make politics out of religion.

And before you go off on a tangent of "Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell don't represent MY beliefs," look at the global representation Christianity alone purports to be - anything from Christmas to the Offering plate screams Capitalism and Materialism - yet there's always an explanation isn't there? "But Christmas is about the little baby Jesus, who's mom had to cross the desert, uphill both ways, in the snow, with no shoes..." yeah, it's hard to see through all of the stories... makes it sound all innocent, but then we have Patty on the Telly screaming for a religious uprising of the faithful to put down satan and his demons - so be sure to call in with your offering of faith! There's nothing stopping someone from using religion to meet their own agenda, and THAT'S a BIG PROBLEM!

Also, that you say I turn religion into some horrible thing is a joke! Religion does that all on its own! My countrymen in Iraq are being blown to pieces because government officials and middle eastern insurgents have made religion their tool in meeting their own personal agendas instead of working toward a common ground. The function of religion is made all to clear time and again when someone acts to turn society's awareness into action upon personal beliefs rather than facts. Hope is just a means of attracting people to that along with Love and Fear.

So, cry about it. Go ahead. But don't sit here and tell me I'm playing a game of semantics with you when I'm clearly stating from experience AND example what should be obvious to everyone. People believe in science, morality, justice, government... there's plenty of things to believe in... religion doesn't have that market cornered anymore.

[Protosschick99]

I find it easier to use specific examples because I feel religions attract different types of poeple. Christianity attracts people because of its relative ease, you don't need to DO anything, just believe your forgiven and church is optional and just another social event, you meet up with people and listen to stories without needing to do anything. Its also easy to swallow, because it lacks anything objectionable or too far out, it doesn't tell you that you may only piss off a 3 story cliff so you don't get affected by evil spirits; infact it pretty much lets you do whatever you want, it can be used to justify pretty much everything, it even lets you break your own commandments (crusades anyone? And since when was homophobia love thy neighbour?). And Jesus also came with a new addition: The devil to blame all your sins on ;)

Actually you do need to do something. When a person becomes Christian it is their responsibility to keep themselves hungry for the Word, to live by the Spirit and not the flesh--And you can't do just whatever you want--For those that say theey are Christian but live in sin aren't exactly Christian themselves. They are hypocrites. We should be living by the ten commandments and by the scriptures--But not too many do, which makes it seem like all Christians don't live by the Word.

Fear of death, you have an eternal soul, and you get to go to heaven just by believing; I feel this is a strong factor because alot of people don't want to just die some day.

You don't go to Heaven just by believing. You have to live right too. Yes we are saved by the grace of God--But how is it right if one man gives his life to the Lord but keeps on living the way he was living before? There has to be an evident change--And that means changing your life to live the Word.

Supierioty: "Haha, I'm going to heaven and your not" So many Christians tell me that I need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven and they feel sorry that I'm not; what the hell genuinally pitying somebody else for not believing in your religion. My interpretation of the bible was that Jesus died for EVERYONE's sins, I mean he forgave the people who killed him, they didn't believe in him so when a Christian tells me that I'm not going to heaven my brain screams "Superiority freak". Since you can't prove them wrong then they can always consider themselves right and everyone else wrong so I think that attracts alot of people who want to feel superior. Those who didn't seek it will stick with it because deep down they feel happy feeling sorry for everyone else.

It's a shame you had to deal with that. I for one can tell you I don't tell ppl that because it's not using wisdom :P

Lack of personal responciablity: I touched on this before but you don't have to take responciablity for your sins or feel bad for not being a Christian before.

Uhh--Yes you do. You definately need to take responsibility for your sins. Why? So that you can repent (Ask the Lord's forgiveness) and Move On! Jesus never taught us to be flakey. As men and women of God we need to take responsibility so that we can face it with Christ, and then move on and never do it again.

Now, after we've moved on and never do it again, of course our past will try to come back at us--But since we repented and the Lord has forgiven us--There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

Instant gratification: This is a mix of the rest but it just makes you feel good, content and all that. Without seeking any of the other reasons you can feel happy with the life you live.

What's wrong with Jesus making you happy? He makes me happy! :D Why can't we be jolly about it--It's not a crime (In the U.S. at least) When the peace of God resides in you--It's a wonderful feeling--You can't help it if you're happy all the time, lolz.

[Tissue]

What I want to know is what happens if you "repent" in the non-religious sense of the word and truly feel sorry and condolence for whatever past wrong deeds or "sins" you have done or created. Do you still have to beleive in the Christian God or Jesus to absolve your sins and allow you to goto heaven.

What if you live by or "practice" the ten commandments but not because you are actively aware of them but as a part of your natural beliefs or due to believing a totally different God. Do you still get to goto heaven? This question also applied to any Muslims as well as Christians as in this respect their beliefs seems to be quite similar.

[Neo]

Pisces I am talking about individuals. You are not.

-Neo

[Pisces]

Umm...ok. I don't know what you are refering to but yes: I am refering to people in general not individuals.

ProtossChick:
All these combined play a part but I'd rank them:
Lack of personal responciablity
Fear of death, this is mixed in with the above because once you die you don't have any consequnces.
Instant gratification.
Superiority. Although the Christians who make themselves known don't lack any of this I feel most Christians don't purposily revel in their superiority.
Easiness of belief, I feel Christians would be Christians even if it was slightly more extreme but it is still up there as a cause because believing what you want is a good bonus
Easiness of practice/joining, this comes in with superiority because you get a superiority complex with no joining fee :D

I'd stick you in group three, you may not believe all the things I have said but you can't deny that people do. After all Anton Szandor LaVey wrote the satanic bible because he was tired of seeing married men going to prositutes then confessing it.

But my point was if somebody feels sorry for what they've done then Christianity is more comforting in knowing that you will be forgiven for only feeling sorry.
Also if you plan to do something again then you are only sinful for the time in which you are planning it, afterwards when you regret it you are forgiven. I'll use cake as an example, if eating cake was a sin but you had a big cake delicious chocolate cake there infront of you tempting you. If you think "oh well its a stupid sin anyway" and eat it, everyone is going to be sorry after they ate it and to the point where they wished they didn't. Eating cake isn't a sin but Jesus teachs that everyone is sinful, depending on what you take from the bible you may or not believe you still commit sins. Everyone repents, but in many other religions feeling sorry isn't enough, hence, Christianity, easier, you can't say that Christianity isn't easier when you quite obviously do less.

Uhh--Yes you do. You definately need to take responsibility for your sins. Why? So that you can repent (Ask the Lord's forgiveness) and Move On! Jesus never taught us to be flakey. As men and women of God we need to take responsibility so that we can face it with Christ, and then move on and never do it again.

In Atheism there is no one to forgive your sins besides yourself and your victim (and possibly the legal system), you live with the knowledge of what you have done and Moving On takes personal strength. If you believe that you've got God's forgiveness because you feel sorry for what you've done and won't do it again; then it gives you strength and hope making it easier, which attracts people to religion, which in turn gives a space/incentive to make/cause religion aka The Original Topic, stick to it.

[ScottieIWU]

I apologize to all for the length of this post in advance. The bulk of it is actually summing up an article I link to for those who don't wish to read 8+ pages. You can skip my summary if you want, but the article is pretty interesting.

I'd like to add the disclaimer that I thought twice about replying to this post, having only skimmed it and having completely skipped certain entries. However, I felt as though I had to jump in at:
I think Athiesm/evolution came into popularity because it comes with no responsibility or morals with it. You can do whatever you want.... and its what a lot of people want to believe even though 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.
Yah, wow, I agree with GA's initial assesment. I'm going to throw out that many atheists (myself included) probably know just as much or more about religion than an "average" Christian. Why do I say that? Well because I, and many other atheists also, research things of that sort so that somebody cannot tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

And I guess I'm going to have to vomit on your assertion that atheists are just making that decision about their lives because we do not want responsibility. Atheists like that exist, but Christians exist also who commit crime and will brush it off because god will forgive them. As was point out, many atheists take personal responsibility for their actions. If I do something that is not in line with my morals or ethics I have to suffer knowing that I have done that, and then I have to correct that action. Many christians would take that approach, but just as many would simply brush off their actions, pray to God for forgiveness and move on never thinking twice about it.

And finally, for the cause of religion and the true topic, I'd like to throw out a perspective that not many people have probably considered. You'll have to bear with me as I only have one article (but am attemping to do research on the side of my other studies related to this issue) entitled "Is God an Accident? (http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/596b/Schaffer/God-Accident.html)" that was originally published in Atlantic Monthly.

Read from here on if you do not wish to read that entire article. If you did, then you can pretty much ignore the rest of this. I wanted to sum it up.

The gist of this article is that the brain has a social part and a physical part. The social part is responsible for people percieving people as having motives, wishes, desires, etc. The physical part then is responsible for percieving non-living objects.

Autistic children are usually left with little to no functionality in their social area of the brain. Hence, they percieve people as objects without motive or intent and that move around randomly and unpredictably. Psychology studies have found this and realize that it is possible that is why autistic children often have difficulty around people or act scared at interactions.

Further study shows that people with functional areas of the social brain may even put motives behind objects that do not have them. A study put random shapes in a pattern that was, to naive participants in the study, supposedly random. In reality, the scientists intended a story to be told and to see if the subjects would infer that story based upon the movements of the objects. Surprise surprise, the participants did put motives and intent, labelled some shapes as bullies and others as heroes. All to something they believed to be random shapes moving on the screen.

The inference that has begun to show up in psychology from this is that religion is a function or result of the social part of the brain that often puts desire or will into things that may just be random. The result? Religion.

But think about this: if religion comes from a normally functioning social area of the brain, then atheism may come from a social brain area with slightly less functionality. Therefore, think about religion in an evolutionary sense. Those who, early on, were predisposed to believe in religion would have had a more functional social center and thus would have theoretically had an easier time socializing. Therefore, those with functional areas interact with those with functional areas, and religion becomes something almost inescapible in an evolutionary sense.

Add that to start religion, people putting motives behind objects because they are predisposed to, add human nature to the mix and you have a beautiful explanation of where religion came from.

Now, flame away religious fanatics!

Note: Just a side note, neuropsychology has made amazing advances and found that love in fact lights up the area of the brain that cocaine lights up. Subsequent studies have found more links between religion and the area of the brain that lights up for love. The difference: the feeling of love is more intense.

[Morkeliph]

In a World Religions class I took once we learned about a study that I, at least, found interesting. Members of various religions globally were surveyed in a random sample asking why they belong to their religion. Responses were categorized into 5 main groups based on their reason. The groups were: Traditional, Social, Economic, Intellectual and Spiritual. For a general breakdown of each, read the following:


Traditional - essentially because it is part of their family tradition of the tradition of their community.
Social - because of social relationships or interactions with others.
Economic - because of financial or temporal security.
Intellectual - because of logic, or other intellectually stimulating reasons.
Spiritual - because of a feeling of need or spirituality that stems from being a member.
So, if I were to rank these in order of most common to least, how do you think they would go? Well, they already are ranked in that order, with the lowest percentage remaining members for "spiritual" reasons. I don't know what insights this gives in the "causes" of religion, but it helps us understand its nature today. Surprisingly, the order in which they are ranked also resembles the order of most likely to least likely to ever leave their religion. Don't know what relevance this has to the topic, but thought it was interesting.

One thing I will say in defense of religion against atheist attacks. Athiests probably understand the first four reasons as well as any member, but the fifth, spirituality, I believe is a very personal thing that cannot be understood unless experienced, and I don't think can be debunked. If someone believes in something because of a "spiritual" reinforcement that it gives them, who is anyone else to say that it's a load of crap? And who else who hasn't experienced what this person has can really understand it as that person does?

[Neo]

You can be spiritual and an athiest at the same time.

Spirituality does not equal religon, inasmuch as you don't have to belong to a religon to be a spiritual person... or whatever.

-Neo

[Hikari256]

And finally, for the cause of religion and the true topic, I'd like to throw out a perspective that not many people have probably considered. You'll have to bear with me as I only have one article (but am attemping to do research on the side of my other studies related to this issue) entitled "Is God an Accident? (http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/596b/Schaffer/God-Accident.html)" that was originally published in Atlantic Monthly.

Read from here on if you do not wish to read that entire article. If you did, then you can pretty much ignore the rest of this. I wanted to sum it up.

The gist of this article is that the brain has a social part and a physical part. The social part is responsible for people percieving people as having motives, wishes, desires, etc. The physical part then is responsible for percieving non-living objects.

Autistic children are usually left with little to no functionality in their social area of the brain. Hence, they percieve people as objects without motive or intent and that move around randomly and unpredictably. Psychology studies have found this and realize that it is possible that is why autistic children often have difficulty around people or act scared at interactions.

Further study shows that people with functional areas of the social brain may even put motives behind objects that do not have them. A study put random shapes in a pattern that was, to naive participants in the study, supposedly random. In reality, the scientists intended a story to be told and to see if the subjects would infer that story based upon the movements of the objects. Surprise surprise, the participants did put motives and intent, labelled some shapes as bullies and others as heroes. All to something they believed to be random shapes moving on the screen.

The inference that has begun to show up in psychology from this is that religion is a function or result of the social part of the brain that often puts desire or will into things that may just be random. The result? Religion.

But think about this: if religion comes from a normally functioning social area of the brain, then atheism may come from a social brain area with slightly less functionality. Therefore, think about religion in an evolutionary sense. Those who, early on, were predisposed to believe in religion would have had a more functional social center and thus would have theoretically had an easier time socializing. Therefore, those with functional areas interact with those with functional areas, and religion becomes something almost inescapible in an evolutionary sense.

Add that to start religion, people putting motives behind objects because they are predisposed to, add human nature to the mix and you have a beautiful explanation of where religion came from.

Now, flame away religious fanatics!



Why woudl we flame you for being one of the few people one finds online who is psychologically literate?

As opposed to say...
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12083214
Who made a similar argument but did not back it with real psychology.

Now to the article:

What seems to be helpfully ignored is the fact that so much of what they discuss in the framework of religion is equally applicable outside the framework. It applies to love, social life, society, nationalism, etc.

As a former athiest i can see how very usefull the article is. It allows people who's worldviews do not allow for God(s) to explain the behavior of people whith worldviews that do.

But then again, being able to explain it without God does not invalidate God. *shrug* Ultimately it's a nice and quite informing article, but one that properly makes no judgenet as to the validity of religion.

And just for the record, Christianity, like "pure strain" Buddhism, is Anthropologically Monist. Seperation/duality of soul/body is known as the Gnostic Heresy, rejected by the Roman Catholic Church since the second century AD. Orthodox Christains believe in ressurection of the *body*.

[ScottieIWU]

What seems to be helpfully ignored is the fact that so much of what they discuss in the framework of religion is equally applicable outside the framework. It applies to love, social life, society, nationalism, etc.
I agree that it can be applied outside, and the fact is that I welcome that framework and description's use outside of simply religion. Love, as I kind of went toward at the end of the post, is slowly becoming something that can be studied scientifically. That seems extremely strange to many but there is more and more evidence that perhaps people who are in love have something in common. The fact is that we're heading down the road where much of what used to be simply shrugged off as part of the soul, etc, is slowly being explained by science.

Of course, accepting these explanations very early on might not be the wisest, but these recent discoveries do warrent further scientific investigation, I believe.

[Morkeliph]

Here's something that may be applicable. A few studies have lead to theories that may explain in part the development, selection and maintenance of religious and cultural practices.

In a study by Pierce (1991), a troop of baboons were kept in a zoo enclosure and were provided with a choice between a preferred food (bananas) and a less appetizing laboratory chow. As expected, the baboons consistently chose to eat the bananas. Following a baseline period, the researchers established a negative reinforcement contingency for eating the less preferred food, Whenever any animal approached the bananas, the entire colony was drenched with water from a fire hose that was used to clean the enclosure. After exposure to this contingency, the troop attacked any member that approached the bananas. Eventually, all members of the troop were exclusively eating the less preferred laboratory chow and avoiding cold showers. The researchers then removed the reinforcement contingency--approaching and eating the bananas no longer resulted in being soaked with water. As you might expect, the group did not test the operating contingencies and continued to attack any member that went toward the preferred food. At this point, the contingencies has established a cultural taboo that was highly resistant to change. Thus, social reinforcement and observational learning contributed to the maintenance of the food taboo, even though the original reinforcement contingencies had long since been removed.

Harris (1974) has provided a functional analysis of the origin and transmission of many human cultural practices. To illustrate, in India the cow is deified and beef is not eaten by many Hindus. This was not always the case--when the last ice age ended the peoples of Northern India raised and ate cattle, sheep, goats, and many agricultural products. Cattle, however, have some advantages other than just providing meat; they may be easilty herded and trained to pull plows or carts. Population density increased greatly in the Ganges River valley and by 300 B.C. the people of the valley had destroyed the trees surrounding the river. As a result, the risk of drought increased and farms decreased in size. Small farms have little space for animals, but draft animals were essential for working the land and transporting agricultural products. Cows provided traction, milk, and meat, but the farmer who ate his cow lost milk production and a working animal. Thus, the people of India faced a social trap involving the immediate benefit of eating beef and the long-term loss of the cows' other advantages. A cost/benefit analysis suggests it was better to keep a cow than eat it. To avoid this social trap, the cow was deified and eating beef became a cultural taboo. The Hindu community has maintained this practice into modern times.

Cultural evolution presumably begins at the individual level. Variation in individual behavior is reinforced by its technological effects. A culture is said to evolve when these innovations are adopted by the community. A common observation is that cultural practices may remain unchanged over many generations. As with behavioral avoidance contingencies, practices may continue even though metacontingencies have changed. Thus, a practice may persist for many years because the members of the group who engage in it fail to contact a change in the metacontingency. At the individual level, a person conforms to the taboo because the social contigencies arranged by the group (religious proclamations and sanctions) avert contact with the change in the physical environment.

[GenocideAlive]

I like Mork. And his baboon study. It's compelling.

[Morkeliph]

The first time I read that baboon study I laughed my ass off. I can just picture them spraying them with that fire hose. As funny as it is, however, it is a rather intriguing study with some serious implications.

[Hikari256]

Here's something that may be applicable. A few studies have lead to theories that may explain in part the development, selection and maintenance of religious and cultural practices.

In a study by Pierce (1991), a troop of baboons were kept in a zoo enclosure and were provided with a choice between a preferred food (bananas) and a less appetizing laboratory chow. As expected, the baboons consistently chose to eat the bananas. Following a baseline period, the researchers established a negative reinforcement contingency for eating the less preferred food, Whenever any animal approached the bananas, the entire colony was drenched with water from a fire hose that was used to clean the enclosure. After exposure to this contingency, the troop attacked any member that approached the bananas. Eventually, all members of the troop were exclusively eating the less preferred laboratory chow and avoiding cold showers. The researchers then removed the reinforcement contingency--approaching and eating the bananas no longer resulted in being soaked with water. As you might expect, the group did not test the operating contingencies and continued to attack any member that went toward the preferred food. At this point, the contingencies has established a cultural taboo that was highly resistant to change. Thus, social reinforcement and observational learning contributed to the maintenance of the food taboo, even though the original reinforcement contingencies had long since been removed.

The effect is called Classical conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) and has been known since 1927. Works on rats, dogs, and primates alike.



Harris (1974) has provided a functional analysis of the origin and transmission of many human cultural practices. To illustrate, in India the cow is deified and beef is not eaten by many Hindus. This was not always the case--when the last ice age ended the peoples of Northern India raised and ate cattle, sheep, goats, and many agricultural products. Cattle, however, have some advantages other than just providing meat; they may be easilty herded and trained to pull plows or carts. Population density increased greatly in the Ganges River valley and by 300 B.C. the people of the valley had destroyed the trees surrounding the river. As a result, the risk of drought increased and farms decreased in size. Small farms have little space for animals, but draft animals were essential for working the land and transporting agricultural products. Cows provided traction, milk, and meat, but the farmer who ate his cow lost milk production and a working animal. Thus, the people of India faced a social trap involving the immediate benefit of eating beef and the long-term loss of the cows' other advantages. A cost/benefit analysis suggests it was better to keep a cow than eat it. To avoid this social trap, the cow was deified and eating beef became a cultural taboo. The Hindu community has maintained this practice into modern times.

Cultural evolution presumably begins at the individual level. Variation in individual behavior is reinforced by its technological effects. A culture is said to evolve when these innovations are adopted by the community. A common observation is that cultural practices may remain unchanged over many generations. As with behavioral avoidance contingencies, practices may continue even though metacontingencies have changed. Thus, a practice may persist for many years because the members of the group who engage in it fail to contact a change in the metacontingency. At the individual level, a person conforms to the taboo because the social contigencies arranged by the group (religious proclamations and sanctions) avert contact with the change in the physical environment.

Which would be why Christians don't keep the Jewish Ceremonial (Levetical) Law. It's no longer considered aplicable because the circumstances changed. (Orthodox Jews diasagre, but that;s a different point)

I'd note however, that not all circumstances have changed, and incest taboos, as well as conditioned customs regarding hospitality, charity, and NOT MURDERING PEOPLE are all still relevant. :D

[Morkeliph]

Actually, it is called operant conditioning, which was first reported by B. F. Skinner in his book, The Behavior of Organisms, written in 1938. Classical conditioning was discovered by Ivan Pavlov prior to his winning the Nobel Prize for digestion in 1904 and represents a different process of learning. In operant learning, behaviors are maintained by their consequences; in classical (also called respondent or Pavlovian) conditioning, behavior is elicited by a conditioned stimulus that was gained its effect through previous pairing with an unconditioned stimulus.

More generally, this study is taking the operant model and the general principle of selection and applying it to the development and maintenance of cultural practices. The baboons learn to avoid the bananas because of punishing consequences, and they learn to stop any other member of the troop from approaching bananas for the same reason. After the punishment is taken away, this avoidance behavior inhibits them from ever learning that they can actually now approach the bananas without getting drenched.

Finally, you make a good point that some cultural practices may be resistant to change because the contingencies under which they were established are still present. For centuries, the only way that books were manufactured was to have scribes make written copies. As a cultural practice, copying books allowed more standardized transmission of knowledge than word of mouth. Better methods of food preparation, house construction, agriculture, waste disposal, and so on could be described in a common matter and passed from one generation to another. That is, transcription of books had survival value for human groups, ensuring the continuation of this practice. (Recall that in biology survival refers to the number of genes--characteristics of organisms--that appear in the next generation. Culturally, survival refers to the transmission of a social-behavioral practice from one generation to the next).

Another interesting notion is the principle of superstitious behavior in behavior analysis. Superstitious is sometimes referred to as behavior that is accidentally reinforced. Perhaps more precisely is that it is any behavior, unnecessary for receiving reinforcement, that an organism engages in because it accompanied reinforcement in the past. For example, a parent may inadvertently strengthen aggressive behavior when a child is given his or her allowance just after fighting with a playmate. A more applicable example to this discussion would be that of the rats I work with in the animal lab. For instance, one rat I work with is trained to press a lever, then put his paws in an ink pad, and finally wipe his hands on a small piece of canvas hanging on the wall of his chamber. When we were training him to press the lever we would at first reinforce successive approximations of lever pressing with a conditioned reinforcer (if our case, a light). This meant turning on the light when he oriented himself towards the lever, and then when he sniffed the lever, and then when he put his paws on the lever, etc. In the process of this, we "accidentally" reinforced him biting the lever. To this day, though it is not necessary in order for him to receive reinforcement, his bites the lever and then presses it with his paws. It is similar to the baseball player who has a career making game when wearing his "lucky blue socks." Because the socks accompanied reinforcement in the past the baseball player continues to wear them, but in reality they did not produce the reinforcement. Perhaps some religious or cultural practices are maintained via the same methods. For instance, if paying tithing to the church variably accompanies unexpected financial gain, then tithe paying may be inadvertently reinforced, even if the real reason the person gained money was because they made a wise investment.

[ScottieIWU]

Mork, I love you. I also love your psychological examples.

[Hikari256]

Actually, it is called operant conditioning, which was first reported by B. F. Skinner in his book, The Behavior of Organisms, written in 1938. Classical conditioning was discovered by Ivan Pavlov prior to his winning the Nobel Prize for digestion in 1904 and represents a different process of learning. In operant learning, behaviors are maintained by their consequences; in classical (also called respondent or Pavlovian) conditioning, behavior is elicited by a conditioned stimulus that was gained its effect through previous pairing with an unconditioned stimulus.


whoops, always did get those confused.

[Morkeliph]

Here's a link to an interesting article that deals with the evolutionary possibilities of social behavior in animals. Why do some animals cooperate or exhibit social behavior? Read the article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0709_030709_socialanimals.html